The Decision-Making Model for Contemporary Art Conservation and Presentation - Version: 1.1 Date: October 2019 Cologne Institute of Conservation ...

 
The Decision-Making Model for Contemporary Art Conservation and Presentation - Version: 1.1 Date: October 2019 Cologne Institute of Conservation ...
 
	
  
The Decision-Making Model
for Contemporary Art
Conservation and Presentation

Version: 1.1
Date: October 2019
Cologne Institute of Conservation Sciences / TH Köln

	
                                                     	
  
	
  
                                                              	
  
The Decision-Making Model for Contemporary Art Conservation and Presentation - Version: 1.1 Date: October 2019 Cologne Institute of Conservation ...
1.         Introduction	
  
                   	
  
                                                                                                                                 1                          2
In	
   answer	
   to	
   emerging	
   contemporary	
   art	
   forms	
   which	
   present	
   new	
   conservation 	
   and	
   presentation 	
   challenges,	
   the	
  
aim	
   of	
   this	
   research	
   initiative	
   was	
   to	
   revisit	
   the	
   Decision-­‐Making	
   Model	
   for	
   the	
   Conservation	
   and	
   Restoration	
   of	
  
                                                    3
Modern	
  and	
  Contemporary	
  Art. 	
  Since	
  its	
  publication	
  by	
  the	
  Dutch	
  Foundation	
  for	
  the	
  Conservation	
  of	
  Contemporary	
  
Art	
   (SBMK,	
   Stichting	
   Behoud	
   Moderne	
   Kunst)	
   in	
   1999	
   the	
   model	
   has	
   served	
   as	
   a	
   valuable	
   tool	
   when	
   navigating	
  
through	
   complex	
   problems	
   in	
   the	
   conservation	
   of	
   modern	
   and	
   contemporary	
   art,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   for	
   discussing	
   and	
  
documenting	
   decision-­‐making	
   processes	
   and	
   training	
   young	
   professionals.	
   Nevertheless,	
   new	
   contemporary	
   art	
   forms	
  
as	
  well	
  as	
  recent	
  research	
  results	
  have	
  revealed	
  more	
  complex	
  needs	
  in	
  regards	
  to	
  an	
  extension	
  of	
  the	
  model.	
  .	
  
	
  
To	
   meet	
   this	
   need,	
   Cologne	
   Institute	
   for	
   Conservation	
   Science	
   (CICS)	
   organized	
   two	
   workshops	
   in	
   conjunction	
   with	
   the	
  
Cultural	
   Heritage	
   Agency	
   of	
   the	
   Netherlands	
   (RCE,	
   Rijksdienst	
   voor	
   het	
   Cultureel	
   Erfgoed)	
   and	
   Maastricht	
   University	
  
(UM).	
   Workshop	
   participants	
   were	
   professionals	
   from	
   the	
   fields	
   of	
   conservation,	
   cultural	
   heritage	
   preservation,	
   art	
  
history,	
  philosophy,	
  and	
  decision	
  theory	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  researchers	
  from	
  the	
  training	
  programme	
  New	
  Approaches	
  in	
  the	
  
                                                                       4
Conservation	
  of	
  Contemporary	
  Art	
  (NACCA) .	
  
This	
   paper	
   summarizes	
   the	
   results	
   and	
   proposes	
   an	
   extended	
   decision-­‐making	
   model	
   that	
   will	
   be	
   further	
   tested	
   in	
   the	
  
near	
  future.	
  
	
  
2.	
  The	
  Decision-­‐Making	
  Model	
  (SBMK	
  1999)	
  
	
  
The	
   initial	
   model,	
   proposed	
   in	
   1999,	
   consists	
   of	
   a	
   flowchart	
   with	
   seven	
   subordinated	
   steps	
   that	
   comprise	
   of	
  
instructions	
  and	
  a	
  checklist	
  for	
  each	
  	
  
(see	
  Figure	
  1).	
  
The	
  first	
  three	
  steps	
  provide	
  support	
  when	
  generating	
  and	
  registering	
  information	
  about	
  an	
  artwork	
  (Step	
  1),	
  on	
  the	
  
artwork's	
  condition	
  (Step	
  2)	
  and	
  on	
  its	
  meaning	
  (Step	
  3).	
  
Step	
  4	
  contrasts	
  a	
  work’s	
  condition	
  and	
  meaning	
  and	
  asks	
  for	
  detailing	
  any	
  discrepancy	
  that	
  would	
  indicate	
  a	
  need	
  for	
  
taking	
  conservation	
  measures.	
  	
  
	
  In	
  Step	
  5	
  conservation	
  options	
  are	
  elaborated.	
  The	
  implications	
  of	
  the	
  options	
  are	
  anticipated	
  and	
  weighed	
  against	
  
each	
  other	
  in	
  Step	
  6,	
  before	
  eventually	
  a	
  decision	
  is	
  
reached	
  and	
  documented	
  in	
  Step	
  7.	
  	
  

When	
  revisiting	
  the	
  model	
  during	
  the	
  workshops	
                  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
the	
  model’s	
  key	
  qualities	
  were	
  considered	
  as:	
                   	
  
-­‐	
  being	
  simple,	
  open,	
  and	
  flexible,	
                                                                                                    	
  
-­‐	
   raising	
   questions	
   instead	
   of	
   providing	
   prefixed	
  
answers,
-­‐	
   the	
   juxtaposition	
   of	
   condition	
   and	
   meaning	
   at	
  
the	
   core	
   of	
   the	
   model	
   to	
   reveal	
   conservation	
  
problems.

                                                                                                            Fig.	
  1:	
  The	
  Decision-­‐making	
  Model	
  for	
  the	
  Conservation	
  and	
  
                                                                                                            Restoration	
  of	
  Modern	
  and	
  Contemporary	
  Art,	
  SBMK	
  1999
1
  	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Conservation.	
  
2
  	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Presentation.	
  
3
  	
  https://sbmk.nl/source/documents/decision-­‐making-­‐model.pdf	
  	
  (28	
  March	
  2019).	
  
4
  	
  http://nacca.eu/about/	
  (28	
  March	
  2019).	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                       1	
  
The Decision-Making Model for Contemporary Art Conservation and Presentation - Version: 1.1 Date: October 2019 Cologne Institute of Conservation ...
3.	
  Reasons	
  for	
  a	
  Revision	
  
	
  
Traditional	
   art	
   conservation	
   usually	
   considers	
   some	
   “original”	
   or	
   ideal	
   state	
   of	
   an	
   artwork,	
   whereas	
   contemporary	
  
works	
   of	
   art	
   often	
   challenge	
   this	
   perspective.	
   Some	
   artworks,	
   such	
   as	
   concept-­‐based	
   or	
   kinetic	
   art,	
   require	
   a	
  
                                                                                       5
rethinking	
  of	
  the	
  approach	
  that	
  considers	
  authenticity 	
  as	
  bound	
  to	
  a	
  work’s	
  original	
  materials.	
  Other	
  forms,	
  such	
  as	
  
installation,	
   media	
   or	
   performance	
   art,	
   may	
   unfold	
   in	
   different	
   conditions	
   and	
   influence	
   the	
   artwork’s	
   meaning	
   and	
  
                    6                                                                                                                  7                8
identity 	
   and	
   often	
   the	
   continuation	
   of	
   these	
   artworks	
   depends	
   on	
   their	
   reinstallation 	
   ,	
   restaging 	
   and	
   display.	
   As	
  
such,	
  decisions	
  on	
  their	
  presentation	
  may	
  have	
  a	
  strong	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  conservation	
  of	
  these	
  artworks.	
  	
  
	
  
Making	
   complex	
   conservation	
   and/or	
   presentation	
   decisions	
   therefore	
   can	
   require	
   the	
   consideration	
   of	
   both	
   an	
  
artwork´s	
  material	
  aspects	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  artwork’s	
  intangible	
  properties,	
  including	
  reflection	
  on	
  different	
  aspects	
  such	
  
                                   9                            10                                   11                                             12
as	
  the	
  artist’s	
  intent ,	
  artist’s	
  sanctions ,	
  installation	
  instructions 	
  and	
  the	
  artwork’s	
  trajectory .	
  The	
  understanding	
  
of	
  these	
  aspects	
  may	
  vary	
  from	
  one	
  interpreter	
  to	
  the	
  next	
  and	
  moreover,	
  their	
  comprehension	
  is	
  subject	
  to	
  change	
  
over	
  time.	
  Furthermore,	
  the	
  active	
  involvement	
  of	
  artists,	
  performers	
  or	
  estates,	
  institutional	
  missions,	
  shifting	
  values	
  
and	
   changing	
   interpretations	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   the	
   often	
   non-­‐linear	
   process	
   of	
   decision-­‐making	
   itself	
   require	
   room	
   for	
  
                                                                          13 14
reflexivity	
  and	
  entail	
  dynamic	
  decision-­‐making . 	
  Finally,	
  the	
  continuously	
  evolving	
  terminology	
  in	
  contemporary	
  art	
  
conservation	
  and	
  presentation	
  makes	
  it	
  necessary	
  to	
  revise	
  and	
  define	
  the	
  terms	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  initial	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  
new	
  model.	
  
	
  
In	
  summary,	
  aspects	
  that	
  required	
  revisiting	
  the	
  model	
  were:	
  
-­‐	
  the	
  	
  consideration	
  of	
  the	
  complex	
  trajectory	
  and	
  evolving	
  character	
  of	
  many	
  contemporary	
  works	
  of	
  art	
  
-­‐	
  the	
  recognition	
  of	
  presentation	
  decisions	
  that	
  may	
  have	
  a	
  strong	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  conservation	
  of	
  artworks	
  
                                                                                                                                    15
-­‐ the	
  need	
  to	
  widen	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  consideration	
  to	
  the	
  intangible	
  significant	
  properties 	
  	
  of	
  an	
  artwork	
  
-­‐	
  dynamics	
  and	
  subjectiveness	
  in	
  decision-­‐making,	
  and	
  
-­‐	
  the	
  continuous	
  development	
  of	
  terminology	
  in	
  contemporary	
  art	
  conservation.	
  
	
  
5
  	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Authenticity.	
  
6
  	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Identity.	
  
7
  	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Reenactment,	
  Reinstallation,	
  Restaging.	
  
8
      Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Reenactment,	
  Reinstallation,	
  Restaging.
9
  	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Artist’s	
  Intent/	
  Intention.	
  
10
      	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Artist’s	
  Sanction.	
  
11
      	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Instructions,	
  Notation,	
  Score.	
  
12
      	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Biography,	
  Trajectory,	
  Career.	
  
13
      	
  Dynamic	
  decision-­‐making:	
  The	
  defining	
  features	
  of	
  dynamic	
  decision-­‐making	
  are:	
  (1)	
  Decisions	
  are	
  made	
  at	
  multiple	
  
points	
  in	
  time,	
  and	
  (2)	
  between	
  decisions	
  the	
  environment	
  may	
  change	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  previous	
  decisions,	
  or	
  (3)	
  the	
  
environment	
  may	
  change	
  spontaneously	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  autonomous	
  processes.	
  Cf.	
  Fischer,	
  A.	
  et	
  al.	
  (2015)	
  pp.	
  1-­‐3.	
  
14
      	
  Cf.	
  Fischer,	
  A.	
  et	
  al.	
  (2012)	
  Article	
  3.	
  
15
          Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Significant	
  Properties.
                                                                                                                                                                                2	
  
4.	
  The	
  Revised	
  Model	
  
	
  
The	
   revised	
   model	
   consists	
   of	
   a	
   flowchart	
   with	
   nine	
   steps.	
   For	
   each	
   step	
   an	
   explanatory,	
   short	
   guide	
   is	
   given	
   and	
  
comprises	
  of	
  (a)	
  the	
  aim	
  of	
  the	
  specific	
  step,	
  (b)	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  instructions	
  how	
  to	
  proceed,	
  (c)	
  an	
  example	
  and	
  -­‐	
  if	
  applicable	
  
-­‐	
  (d)	
  a	
  checklist.	
  In	
  addition,	
  terms	
  pivotal	
  to	
  (decision-­‐making	
  in)	
  conservation	
  and	
  presentation	
  of	
  contemporary	
  art	
  
                                                             16
are	
  defined	
  in	
  the	
  annexed	
  glossary .	
  	
  
	
  
	
                        Fig.	
  2:	
  The	
  Decision-­‐Making	
  Model	
  for	
  Contemporary	
  Art	
  Conservation	
  and	
  Presentation,	
  2019
	
  
Step	
  1	
  is	
  dedicated	
  to	
  the	
  starting	
  point	
  in	
  the	
  specific	
  case	
  at	
  hand	
  where	
  the	
  initial	
  aim	
  of	
  the	
  decision-­‐makers,	
  the	
  
relevant	
   circumstances	
   as	
   well	
   the	
   stakeholders	
   are	
   all	
   described.	
   	
   In	
   the	
   subsequent	
   three	
   steps	
   a	
   deeper	
  
understanding	
  of	
  the	
  artwork	
  is	
  developed:	
  data	
  on	
  the	
  artwork	
  is	
  generated	
  and	
  registered	
  in	
  Step	
  2,	
  and	
  the	
  current	
  
as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  desired	
  state	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  are	
  described	
  in	
  the	
  Steps	
  3	
  and	
  4	
  respectively.	
  In	
  Step	
  5,	
  it	
  is	
  determined	
  if	
  
there	
   is	
   a	
   discrepancy	
   between	
   the	
   current	
   and	
   desired	
   state	
   of	
   the	
   work	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   specify	
   any	
   problems	
   relevant	
   to	
  
the	
  works’	
  conservation	
  and/or	
  presentation.	
  If	
  so	
  in	
  Step	
  6,	
  strategies	
  for	
  the	
  works’	
  conservation/presentation	
  are	
  
developed	
   and	
   then	
   weighed	
   and	
   evaluated	
   against	
   each	
   other	
   in	
   Step	
   7.	
   In	
   Step	
   8,	
   the	
   decision	
   for	
   one	
   of	
   these	
  
options	
   is	
   agreed	
   upon	
   and	
   documented.	
   Step	
   9	
   addresses	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   selected	
   strategy,	
   including	
   the	
  
monitoring	
  and	
  control	
  of	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  its	
  execution	
  and	
  assessing	
  the	
  final	
  results	
  after	
  completion.	
  	
  
	
  
This	
   revised	
   model	
   thus	
   follows	
   the	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   initial	
   model	
   with	
   two	
   additional	
   steps,	
   Step	
   1:	
   the	
   Point	
   of	
  
Departure	
   and	
   Step	
   9:	
   Implementation	
   and	
   Assessment.	
   The	
   explanation	
   of	
   the	
   steps	
   includes	
   the	
   checklists	
   from	
   the	
  
original	
   model	
   although	
   -­‐	
   where	
   necessary	
   -­‐	
   the	
   questions	
   revised	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   address	
   current	
   challenges	
   in	
  
contemporary	
   art	
   conservation	
   and	
   to	
   incorporate	
   the	
   continuously	
   evolving	
   terms	
   and	
   terminology	
   in	
   the	
   field.	
   As	
  
such	
  the	
  new	
  model	
  is	
  intended	
  to	
  follow	
  a	
  more	
  dynamic	
  process,	
  allowing	
  for	
  finer-­‐graded	
  reflection	
  and	
  decision-­‐
making	
  at	
  all	
  stages	
  in	
  the	
  process.	
  
	
  
16
   Definitions	
  for	
  a	
  selection	
  of	
  terms	
  and	
  terminology	
  in	
  contemporary	
  art	
  conservation	
  and	
  presentation	
  were	
  
elaborated	
  by	
  the	
  Early	
  Stage	
  Researchers	
  of	
  the	
  NACCA	
  training	
  programme	
  (http://nacca.eu/).	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                     3	
  
 
Step	
  1:	
  Point	
  of	
  Departure	
  	
  
	
  
Aim	
   and	
   instructions:	
   In	
   the	
   first	
   step	
   of	
   the	
   model	
   the	
   starting	
   point	
   of	
   the	
   specific	
  
decision-­‐making	
  process	
  is	
  described.	
  	
  
Step	
  1	
  is	
  broken	
  down	
  into	
  three	
  substeps	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  users	
  of	
  the	
  model	
  are	
  requested	
  
to	
  describe	
  (a)	
  the	
  circumstances,	
  (b)	
  the	
  initial	
  aim,	
  and	
  (c)	
  the	
  stakeholders	
  involved,	
  
along	
  with	
  their	
  overarching	
  goals.	
  The	
  mode	
  of	
  decision-­‐making	
  applied	
  (e.g.	
  decision	
  
made	
  by	
  an	
  individual,	
  by	
  consensus	
  or	
  by	
  a	
  majority)	
  is	
  also	
  noted.	
  
	
  
Remarks:	
  This	
  step	
  builds	
  on	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  a	
  decision-­‐making	
  process	
  begins	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  particular	
  question,	
  an	
  interest	
  or	
  
                                   17
a	
  specific	
  situation. 	
  	
  
Describing	
   the	
   starting	
   point	
   in	
   the	
   case	
   at	
   hand	
   is	
   meant	
   to	
   enable	
   decision-­‐makers	
   to	
   better	
   understand	
   and	
  
navigate	
   through	
   the	
   actual	
   process.	
   This	
   information	
   can	
   also	
   help	
   future	
   custodians	
   to	
   retrace	
   previous	
   decisions	
  
and	
  grasp	
  what	
  influence	
  the	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  contextual	
  aspects	
  had	
  on	
  those	
  decisions	
  and	
  consequently,	
  on	
  the	
  
                                    18
artworks´	
   biography .	
   Thus,	
   it	
   is	
   in	
   Step	
   1	
   that	
   the	
   context	
   in	
   which	
   the	
   micro-­‐	
   and	
   macro-­‐decisions	
   will	
   be	
   made	
   and	
  
the	
  motivation	
  that	
  drives	
  the	
  overall	
  process	
  is	
  made	
  explicit.	
  	
  
	
  
a)	
  Circumstances	
  
Aim	
   and	
   instructions:	
   The	
   objective	
   of	
   the	
   substep	
   "circumstances"	
   is	
   to	
   analyse	
   the	
   context	
   and	
   institutional	
  
infrastructure	
  or	
  framework,	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  process	
  is	
  taking	
  place.	
  
The	
  initial	
  situation,	
  reasons,	
  and	
  questions	
  are	
  considered	
  and	
  described	
  where	
  they	
  are	
  the	
  determining	
  factors	
  as	
  
to	
  why	
  the	
  artwork	
  has	
  become	
  subject	
  of	
  investigation.	
  
Examples:	
   A	
   loan	
   request,	
   the	
   new	
   presentation	
   of	
   a	
   work,	
   damage	
   to	
   or	
   the	
   obsolescence	
   of	
   technology-­‐based	
  
components.	
  	
  
Nb.	
  Nam	
  June	
  Paik’s	
  Fish	
  Flies	
  on	
  Sky	
  (1985	
  &	
  1995)	
  will	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  an	
  example	
  to	
  illustrate	
  the	
  model.	
  	
  
	
  
b)	
  Initial	
  aim	
  
Aim	
  and	
  instructions:	
  The	
  next	
  substep	
  serves	
  to	
  record	
  the	
  initial	
  aim,	
  which	
  opens	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  process.	
  In	
  
contrast	
  to	
  the	
  circumstances,	
  the	
  initial	
  aim	
  is	
  something	
  the	
  decision-­‐maker(s)	
  actively	
  commit(s)	
  to	
  adopt	
  (although	
  
it	
  can	
  be	
  brought	
  up	
  by	
  any	
  stakeholder).	
  	
  
Example:	
  To	
  keep	
  a	
  video	
  installation	
  functioning	
  that	
  involves	
  defective,	
  obsolete	
  devices,	
  such	
  as	
  CRT-­‐monitors.	
  This	
  
could	
   be	
   e.g.	
   to	
   keep	
   a	
   video	
   installation	
   functioning	
   that	
   involves	
   defective,	
   obsolete	
   devices,	
   such	
   as	
   cathode-­‐ray	
  
tube	
  televisions	
  (CRT	
  TV).	
  
	
  
c)	
  Stakeholders,	
  their	
  intentions	
  and	
  their	
  overarching	
  goal	
  
Aim	
   and	
   instructions:	
   The	
   last	
   substep	
   is	
   meant	
   to	
   shed	
   light	
   on	
   potential	
   decision-­‐makers	
   and	
   interested	
   parties	
  
whose	
  perspective	
  should	
  be	
  considered	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  decision-­‐making.	
  
As	
  such,	
  users	
  of	
  the	
  model	
  are	
  asked	
  to	
  provide	
  information	
  on:	
  
        -­‐        the	
  stakeholders	
  who	
  are	
  or	
  should	
  be	
  involved,	
  	
  
        -­‐        the	
  stakeholders’	
  professional	
  background,	
  affiliation,	
  legitimation	
  and	
  professional	
  mission,	
  	
  
        -­‐        the	
  stakeholders’	
  motivation	
  and	
  personal	
  interests	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  at	
  hand,	
  	
  
        -­‐        the	
  stakeholders’	
  common	
  overarching	
  common	
  goal,	
  	
  
        -­‐        the	
  mode	
  of	
  decision-­‐making	
  taken	
  
	
  
Remarks:	
   	
   Recording	
   the	
   stakeholders	
   raises	
   awareness	
   of	
   who	
   is	
   or	
   who	
   should	
   be	
   in	
   charge	
   of	
   decision-­‐making	
   it	
  
makes	
   explicit	
   who	
   influences	
   the	
   process	
   and	
   to	
   which	
   degree.	
   Information	
   on	
   the	
   individual	
   preferences	
   of	
   all	
  
parties	
   involved	
   enables	
   peers	
   to	
   contextualize	
   how	
   the	
   process	
   of	
   decision-­‐making	
   unfolds	
   and	
   furthermore,	
  

17
     	
  Cf.	
  Fischer,	
  A.	
  et	
  al.	
  (2016)	
  pp.	
  217-­‐229.	
  
18
     	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Biography,	
  Trajectory,	
  Career.	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                         4	
  
identifying	
   the	
   overarching	
   goal	
   allows	
   for	
   assimilating	
   the	
   professional	
   and	
   ethical	
   common	
   ground	
   between	
   the	
  
decision-­‐makers.	
   Users	
   of	
   the	
   model	
   can	
   thus	
   refer	
   to	
   ethical	
   guidelines,	
   charters	
   and	
   codes	
   -­‐	
   i.e.	
   documents	
   that	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                         19
comprise	
   a	
   set	
   of	
   peer-­‐imposed	
   regulations	
   that	
   professionals	
   can	
   build	
   on	
   and	
   that	
   all	
   stakeholders	
   agree	
   upon. 	
  
While	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  meant	
  that	
  the	
  overarching	
  goal	
  is	
  to	
  be	
  discussed	
  in	
  detail	
  each	
  time	
  a	
  decision	
  is	
  pending,	
  an	
  explicit	
  
specification	
   might	
   be	
   required	
   when	
   applied	
   to	
   contemporary	
   art	
   as	
   most	
   extant	
   charters	
   or	
   codes	
   have	
   been	
  
developed	
  for	
  more	
  traditional	
  artworks.	
  
Specifying	
   the	
   mode	
   of	
   decision-­‐making	
   further	
   acknowledges	
   that,	
   depending	
   on	
   their	
   position	
   and	
   authority,	
   a	
  
decision-­‐maker	
  can	
  affect	
  the	
  team	
  decision-­‐making	
  process.	
  
	
  
Example:	
   Using	
   the	
   example	
   of	
   an	
   inoperable,	
   obsolete	
   video	
   installation,	
   stakeholders	
   could	
   include	
   the	
   artist	
   or	
  
assistants,	
   conservators,	
   curators,	
   the	
   artist,	
   artist	
   assistants,	
   TV-­‐technicians,	
   security	
   administrators,	
   the	
   fire	
  
prevention	
   officer,	
   insurers,	
   etc.	
   A	
   particular	
   intent	
   of	
   the	
   conservator	
   and	
   curator	
   might	
   be	
   to	
   preserve	
   the	
   audio-­‐
visual	
  experience	
  and	
  material	
  integrity	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  and	
  a	
  common	
  overarching	
  goal	
  could	
  be	
  following	
  ICOM	
  Code	
  of	
  
Ethics	
  (2017).	
  Finally,	
  the	
  decision	
  on	
  the	
  conservation	
  strategy	
  might	
  be	
  made	
  by	
  consensus.	
  	
  
	
  
Checklist:	
  
	
  
Central	
  Question:	
  	
  
How	
  did	
  you	
  get	
  involved,	
  who	
  else	
  is	
  involved,	
  what	
  are	
  you	
  aiming	
  at	
  and	
  how	
  are	
  you	
  going	
  to	
  make	
  the	
  decision?	
  
	
  
Circumstances:	
  
     -­‐     What	
  circumstances	
  and	
  questions	
  are	
  worth	
  noting	
  for	
  explaining	
  how	
  you	
  became	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  
             decision-­‐making	
  process?	
  
     -­‐     What	
  are	
  the	
  events	
  that	
  triggered	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  process	
  at	
  hand?	
  
     -­‐     How	
  urgent	
  is	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  a	
  decision?	
  	
  
	
  
Initial	
  aim:	
  
     -­‐     What	
  is	
  the	
  initial	
  aim	
  that	
  kick-­‐started	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  process?	
  	
  
     -­‐     Who	
  initiated	
  it?	
  
	
  
Stakeholders,	
  intention	
  and	
  overarching	
  goal:	
  
     -­‐     Who	
  is	
  currently	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  process?	
  	
  
     -­‐     What	
  is	
  the	
  professional	
  background	
  and	
  affiliation	
  of	
  the	
  decision-­‐makers	
  and	
  other	
  parties	
  involved?	
  	
  	
  
     -­‐     What	
  is	
  the	
  decision-­‐makers´	
  professional	
  mission	
  or	
  personal	
  interest	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  at	
  hand?	
  
     -­‐     What	
  is	
  the	
  overarching	
  goal	
  the	
  decision-­‐makers	
  subscribe	
  to?	
  	
  
     -­‐     Does	
  the	
  overarching	
  goal	
  need	
  any	
  further	
  specifications	
  for	
  the	
  case	
  at	
  hand?	
  
     -­‐     Who	
  else	
  should	
  or	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  involved?	
  Why?	
  
     -­‐     Who	
  takes	
  the	
  decision?	
  What	
  is	
  the	
  mode	
  of	
  decision-­‐making?	
  What	
  is	
  the	
  share	
  of	
  power?	
  Will	
  it	
  be	
  a	
  
             decision	
  made	
  by	
  an	
  individual,	
  by	
  consensus,	
  by	
  a	
  majority,	
  etc.?	
  How	
  will	
  the	
  process	
  be	
  organized,	
  
             recorded,	
  and	
  documented	
  (meetings,	
  interviews,	
  reports,	
  etc.)?	
  

19
  	
  Venice	
  Charter	
  (1964),	
  Nara	
  Document	
  of	
  Authenticity	
  (1994),	
  E.C.C.O.	
  Professional	
  Guidelines	
  (2003),	
  ICOM	
  Code	
  
of	
  Ethics	
  (2017)	
  et	
  al.	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                            5	
  
Step	
  2:	
  Data	
  Generation	
  and	
  Registration	
  	
  
	
  
Aim	
   and	
   instructions:	
   The	
   objective	
   of	
   this	
   step	
   is	
   to	
   register	
   relevant	
   data	
   on	
   the	
  
artwork.	
  The	
  information	
  gathered	
  forms	
  the	
  basis	
  for	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  understanding	
  
of	
   the	
   artwork	
   in	
   question	
   and	
   paves	
   the	
   way	
   for	
   a	
   well-­‐argued	
   decision-­‐making	
  
process.	
  	
  
Users	
   of	
   the	
   model	
   are	
   requested	
   to	
   collect,	
   generate	
   and	
   register	
   a	
   variety	
   of	
   different	
  
data,	
  including:	
  	
  
        -­‐     the	
  artwork’s	
  identification,	
  	
  
        -­‐     description,	
  	
  
        -­‐     information	
   on	
   the	
   production	
   and	
   creative	
   process,	
   materials,	
   techniques	
   and	
  
                technologies	
  used	
  or	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  work,	
  	
  
        -­‐     location	
  of	
  the	
  artwork	
  and	
  associated	
  materials/equipment/components	
  and	
  environmental	
  conditions,	
  
        - the	
   present	
   condition	
   of	
   the	
   artwork	
   -­‐	
   this	
   may	
   include	
   condition	
   reports	
   and	
   results	
   from	
   scientific	
  
                examination,	
   including	
   material	
   analysis,	
   imaging	
   techniques,	
   etc.,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   information	
   on	
   when	
   and	
   by	
  
                whom	
  the	
  reports/scientific	
  analysis	
  were	
  submitted,	
  	
  
        -­‐     requirements	
  for	
  handling,	
  transport	
  and	
  storage,	
  	
  
                                                                                                                                                      20 21
        -­‐     installation	
   instructions	
   and	
   information	
   on	
   the	
   variability	
   (including	
   scores ,	
   notations ,	
   floor	
   plans,	
  
                architectural	
  and	
  exhibition	
  models,	
  etc.),	
  	
  
                                       22
        -­‐     past	
  iterations ,	
  	
  
        -­‐     the	
  acquisition	
  history,	
  
        -­‐     bibliography,	
  publications,	
  correspondence,	
  archival	
  documents	
  on	
  the	
  artwork,	
  
        -­‐     information	
  on	
  the	
  artist,	
  assistants,	
  technicians,	
  performers	
  (relevant	
  literature,	
  contact	
  details),	
  	
  
        -­‐     oral	
  and	
  written	
  information	
  from	
  the	
  artist,	
  his/her	
  assistants,	
  confidants	
  or	
  contemporaries,	
  such	
  as	
  artist	
  
                interviews	
  etc.,	
  	
  
                                             23
        -­‐     related	
  artworks 	
  
	
  
If	
   needed,	
   support	
   can	
   be	
   drawn	
   from	
   the	
   many	
   existing	
   models	
   for	
   data	
   registration,	
   condition	
   reporting	
   and	
  
                         24
documentation. 	
  In	
  general,	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  data	
  generation	
  and	
  registration	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  restricted	
  to	
  one	
  particular	
  
case	
  of	
  decision-­‐making	
  as	
  the	
  pool	
  of	
  information	
  can	
  be	
  accumulative	
  and	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  re-­‐generated	
  every	
  
time.	
  Data	
  that	
  has	
  once	
  been	
  gathered	
  can	
  also	
  inform	
  future	
  decisions.	
  	
  
	
  
Remarks:	
  Collecting,	
  generating	
  and	
  registering	
  data	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  neutral	
  process.	
  Different	
  users	
  of	
  the	
  model	
  will	
  consider	
  
different	
   data	
   as	
   crucial	
   information.	
   Amongst	
   other	
   things,	
   the	
   choice	
   of	
   data	
   depends	
   on	
   the	
   circumstances,	
   the	
  
initial	
  aim	
  for	
  the	
  case	
  at	
  hand	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  on	
  the	
  stakeholders	
  involved	
  and	
  their	
  particular	
  pattern	
  of	
  intentions	
  (cf.	
  
                                                                                                                                                           25
Step	
   1,	
   Point	
   of	
   Departure).	
   	
   As	
   documentation	
   decisions	
   have	
   an	
   impact	
   on	
   conservation	
   decisions ,	
   the	
   information	
  
gathered	
  in	
  the	
  Step	
  2	
  influences	
  the	
  further	
  process	
  of	
  decision-­‐making.	
  
                                                                	
  
20
            Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Instruction,	
  Notation,	
  Score.	
  
21
            Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Instruction,	
  Notation,	
  Score.	
  
22
        	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Iteration.	
  
23
        	
  Marçal,	
  H.,	
  ‘Decision-­‐making	
  in	
  the	
  conservation	
  of	
  performance	
  art’,	
  presentation	
  at	
  the	
  SBMK	
  Symposium	
  Acting	
  
in	
  Contemporary	
  Art	
  Conservation,	
  Amersfoort,	
  Amsterdam,	
  15	
  November	
  2018.	
  	
  
24
        	
  Models	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  developed	
  for	
  contemporary	
  art	
  documentation,	
  registration	
  and	
  condition	
  reporting	
  
purposes	
  include:	
  	
  
-­‐	
  Matters	
  in	
  Media	
  Art	
  Initiative,	
  2005:	
  http://mattersinmediaart.org/assessing-­‐time-­‐based-­‐media-­‐art.html,	
  	
  
-­‐	
  DOCAM,	
  2005:	
  http://www.docam.ca/en/documentation-­‐model.html,	
  	
  
-­‐	
  the	
  Inside	
  Installations	
  Documentation	
  Model	
  2IDM	
  2007:	
  https://sbmk.nl/source/documents/inside-­‐installations-­‐
theory-­‐and-­‐practice-­‐in-­‐the-­‐care-­‐of-­‐complex-­‐artworks.pdf,	
  	
  
-­‐	
  Tate’s	
  The	
  Live	
  List,	
  2012/	
  2013:	
  https://www.tate.org.uk/about-­‐us/projects/collecting-­‐performative/live-­‐list-­‐what-­‐
consider-­‐when-­‐collecting-­‐live-­‐works,	
  	
  
-­‐	
  Joanna	
  Phillips’	
  Iteration	
  Report,	
  2015:	
  http://revistaharte.fcsh.unl.pt/rhaw4/rhaw4_print/JoannaPhillips.pdf,	
  
-­‐	
  E.C.C.O.s	
  Competences	
  for	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  Conservation-­‐Restoration	
  profession,	
  2011:	
   http://www.ecco-­‐
eu.org/fileadmin/assets/documents/publications/ECCO_Competences_EN.pdf	
  et	
  al.	
  
25
        	
  Hummelen,	
  I.,	
  Scholte,	
  T.	
  (2006)	
  pp.	
  5-­‐11.	
  
                                                                                                                                                                           6	
  
Step	
  3:	
  Current	
  State	
  (Condition)

Aim	
  and	
  instructions:	
  The	
  objective	
  of	
  this	
  step	
  is	
  to	
  develop	
  a	
  profound	
  understanding	
  
of	
   the	
   artwork’s	
   current	
   state	
   by	
   interpreting	
   the	
   results	
   gained	
   in	
   the	
   Step	
   2:	
   Data	
  
Generation	
  and	
  Registration.	
  
Following	
   a	
   holistic	
   approach,	
   the	
   decision-­‐makers	
   are	
   requested	
   to	
   evaluate	
   the	
  
current	
   state	
   or	
   condition	
   of	
   the	
   artwork	
   by	
   considering	
   changes,	
   the	
   artwork’s	
  
biography,	
   environmental	
   conditions,	
   and	
   other	
   relevant	
   information	
   concerning	
  
properties	
   of	
   the	
   artwork	
   that	
   may	
   be	
   considered	
   significant	
   with	
   regard	
   to	
   Step	
   4.	
   If	
  
needed,	
   further	
   investigations	
   including	
   scientific	
   analysis,	
   material	
   research,	
   etc.	
   might	
  
need	
  to	
  be	
  carried	
  out.	
  Questions	
  about	
  the	
  future	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  raised,	
  including	
  the	
  ageing	
  properties	
  of	
  
                                                                                                                                                               26
specific	
  materials,	
  the	
  potential	
  obsolescence	
  of	
  equipment	
  and	
  the	
  feasibility	
  of	
  future	
  manifestation .	
  	
  
Remarks:	
   The	
   interpretation	
   of	
   the	
   artwork’s	
   current	
   state	
   or	
   condition	
   is	
   likely	
   to	
   vary	
   between	
   stakeholders	
   and	
  
other	
  parties	
  involved,	
  and	
  liable	
  to	
  change	
  over	
  time.	
  
	
  
Example:	
   Nam	
   June	
   Paik`s	
   Fish	
   Flies	
   on	
   Sky	
   (1985	
   /	
   1995)	
   is	
   a	
   multi-­‐monitor-­‐installation	
   consisting	
   of	
   88	
   CRT	
   TVs	
  
                                   27
suspended	
  from	
  a	
  ceiling. 	
  Having	
  been	
  in	
  operation	
  for	
  more	
  than	
  20	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  Kunstpalast	
  Düsseldorf,	
  the	
  1995	
  
re-­‐installation	
  had	
  manifested	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  failure	
  rates	
  of	
  its	
  technology	
  with	
  defective	
  TVs	
  being	
  de-­‐installed	
  
over	
  the	
  years.	
  
	
  
Checklist:	
  	
  
Central	
  Question:	
  How	
  do	
  you	
  and	
  potential	
  other	
  decision-­‐makers	
  evaluate	
  the	
  artwork´s	
  current	
  state	
  on	
  the	
  basis	
  
of	
  the	
  information	
  gathered	
  in	
  Step	
  2?	
  What	
  are	
  the	
  reasons	
  for	
  the	
  current	
  state	
  and	
  possible	
  changes	
  of	
  the	
  artwork	
  
and	
  how	
  do	
  you	
  assess	
  their	
  causes?	
  
	
  
Tangible	
  and	
  intangible	
  aspects:	
  	
  
    -­‐   How	
  do	
  you	
  describe	
  and	
  evaluate	
  the	
  current	
  state	
  of	
  the	
  works’	
  material	
  components,	
  functionality	
  and	
  
          immaterial	
  aspects	
  	
  (e.g.	
  light	
  specifications	
  of	
  a	
  light	
  installation,	
  political	
  and	
  social	
  aspects	
  for	
  works	
  linked	
  
          to	
  a	
  particular	
  political	
  and	
  social	
  situation;	
  performative	
  aspects	
  etc.)?	
  How	
  do	
  you	
  evaluate	
  its	
  condition	
  
          based	
  on	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  visual	
  examination,	
  tests	
  or	
  scientific	
  analysis?	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  changes	
  regarding	
  the	
  
          artworks	
  condition,	
  how	
  were	
  they	
  caused	
  (root	
  cause	
  analysis)?	
  Were	
  they	
  triggered	
  by	
  e.g.	
  environmental	
  
          conditions?	
  Did	
  changes	
  occur	
  due	
  to	
  involvement	
  by	
  the	
  artist	
  or	
  due	
  to	
  other	
  past	
  events	
  in	
  the	
  artworks	
  
          biography	
  (e.g.	
  former	
  conservation	
  or	
  presentation	
  decisions)?	
  	
  	
  
    -­‐   Are	
  there	
  any	
  uncertainties	
  about	
  the	
  work?	
  Is	
  further	
  research	
  needed	
  to	
  understand	
  and	
  evaluate	
  the	
  
          artwork’s	
  current	
  state	
  or	
  potential	
  changes	
  in	
  its	
  condition	
  and	
  their	
  causes	
  or	
  to	
  elaborate	
  
          presentation/installation/performance	
  specifications	
  (e.g.	
  information	
  on	
  production	
  techniques,	
  the	
  
          political	
  and	
  social	
  context	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  creation	
  or	
  manifestation,	
  etc.)	
  
	
  
Biography:	
  	
  
    -­‐ How	
  do	
  you	
  evaluate	
  the	
  work’s	
  condition	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  artwork’s	
  biography?	
  Which	
  events	
  in	
  the	
  
        artworks	
  trajectory	
  do	
  you	
  consider	
  as	
  important	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  evaluate	
  the	
  artwork´s	
  current	
  state?	
  (e.g.	
  
        previous	
  iterations,	
  changes	
  of	
  ownership	
  and	
  the	
  acquisition	
  history,	
  previous	
  conservation	
  campaigns,	
  
        political	
  and	
  social	
  context,	
  different	
  installation	
  spaces	
  etc.?)	
  
              	
  
Artist‘s	
  instructions	
  and	
  sanctions:	
  	
  
     -­‐      How	
  do	
  you	
  evaluate	
  the	
  artwork’s	
  current	
  state	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  artist´s	
  statements,	
  instructions	
  and	
  
              sanctions?	
  Are	
  there	
  e.g.	
  any	
  instructions	
  or	
  sanctions	
  given	
  by	
  the	
  artist	
  that,	
  for	
  example,	
  specify	
  the	
  
              significant	
  properties	
  (both	
  tangible	
  and	
  intangible)	
  of	
  the	
  artwork?	
  

26
 	
  Cf.	
  6.2	
  Glossary.	
  Manifestation.	
  
27
     Fish	
  Flies	
  on	
  Sky	
  (1985	
  &	
  1995)	
  by	
  Nam	
  June	
  Paik	
  is	
  used	
  as	
  a	
  case	
  study	
  to	
  exemplify	
  the	
  individual	
  steps	
  in	
  this	
  
model.	
  Thereby,	
  it	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  the	
  master	
  thesis	
  by	
  Christian	
  Imhoff	
  (CICS	
  2014)	
  and	
  Imhoff,	
  C.	
  et	
  al.	
  (2016).	
  	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                   7	
  
Step	
  4:	
  Desired	
  State	
  (Meaning)	
  

Aim	
  and	
  instructions:	
  The	
  objective	
  of	
  this	
  step	
  is	
  to	
  develop	
  a	
  profound	
  understanding	
  
of	
   the	
   artwork	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   reach	
   a	
   consensus	
   about	
   its	
   identity(ies)	
   and	
   the	
   state(s),	
   in	
  
which	
  the	
  artwork	
  is	
  considered	
  as	
  authentic	
  (desired	
  state).	
  	
  
This	
  step	
  is	
  used	
  to	
  determine	
  which	
  properties	
  of	
  the	
  artwork	
  are	
  deemed	
  constitutive	
  
to	
  its	
  identity	
  by	
  considering:	
  
         -­‐     the	
  artist’s	
  intent	
  and/or	
  concept,	
  
         -­‐     the	
   attributed	
   meaning	
   derived	
   from	
   its	
   materials,	
   production	
   process,	
  
                 appearance	
  and	
  any	
  changes,	
  	
  
         -­‐     the	
  anticipated	
  or	
  intended	
  reception	
  of	
  the	
  artwork,	
  
         -­‐     the	
  artwork´s	
  biography.	
  	
  
                 	
  
Users	
   of	
   the	
   model	
   thus	
   attempt	
   to	
   find	
   out	
   how	
   the	
   artist	
   expresses	
   and	
   how	
   they	
   assume	
   the	
   artwork	
   should	
  
appear,	
   function	
   and	
   be	
   presented.	
   Among	
   other	
   things,	
   the	
   step	
   allows	
   users	
   to	
   appreciate	
   different	
   values	
   that	
  
might	
  have	
  been	
  attributed	
  to	
  the	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  past	
  and	
  that	
  have	
  changed	
  over	
  the	
  years	
  and	
  which	
  affect	
  the	
  current	
  
and	
   future	
   interpretation	
   and	
   understanding	
   of	
   the	
   artwork.	
   It	
   also	
   might	
   be	
   that	
   there	
   is	
   more	
   than	
   one	
   desirable	
  
state	
  (for	
  example	
  different	
  iterations	
  of	
  an	
  installation	
  artwork)	
  that	
  corresponds	
  to	
  the	
  meaning	
  attributed	
  to	
  the	
  
                                                                                     28
artwork	
  and	
  that	
  transmits	
  its	
  significant	
  properties. 	
  
For	
  this	
  step	
  it	
  is	
  therefore	
  crucial	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  the	
  artwork	
  appeared	
  and	
  functioned	
  in	
  the	
  past,	
  what	
  stages	
  it	
  
went	
  through	
  and	
  what	
  further	
  developments	
  are	
  to	
  be	
  expected	
  in	
  the	
  future	
  -­‐	
  cf.	
  Step	
  3.	
  
	
  	
  
Remarks:	
   Although	
   assessing	
   the	
   artwork’s	
   identity,	
   meaning,	
   and	
   desired	
   state	
   is	
   a	
   precondition	
   for	
   decision-­‐making,	
  
this	
   is	
   not	
   unambiguous.	
   The	
   judgment	
   on	
   which	
   properties	
   of	
   the	
   artwork	
   are	
   constitutive	
   and	
   significant	
   is	
  
constructed	
   and	
   subject	
   to	
   change	
   as	
   related	
   values	
   may	
   shift	
   over	
   time.	
   Moreover,	
   different	
   decision-­‐makers	
   will	
  
inevitably	
   interpret	
   the	
   desired	
   state	
   of	
   an	
   artwork	
   in	
   different	
   ways,	
   not	
   least	
   because	
   of	
   their	
   professional	
  
background,	
   a	
   varying	
   access	
   to	
   knowledge,	
   individual	
   decisions	
   about	
   what	
   information	
   is	
   important,	
   personal	
  
interest	
  and	
  temperament,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  context	
  and	
  current	
  zeitgeist	
  around	
  conservation	
  and	
  art.	
  
	
  
Example:	
  According	
  to	
  statements	
  by	
  Paik,	
  experiencing	
  the	
  video	
  sequences	
  had	
  the	
  priority.	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  Fish	
  Flies	
  
on	
   Sky,	
  as	
   Paik	
   had	
   changed	
   the	
   work	
   several	
   times	
   in	
   the	
   past	
   and	
   he	
   was	
   favourable	
   to	
   the	
   idea	
   of	
   migrating	
  
technology,	
  the	
  decision-­‐makers	
  thus	
  regarded	
  the	
  functionality	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  as	
  having	
  the	
  greatest	
  significance.	
  They	
  
also	
  appreciated	
  that	
  the	
  CRT	
  TVs	
  have	
  a	
  specific	
  dimension,	
  shape,	
  and	
  look	
  that	
  was	
  also	
  important	
  to	
  consider	
  for	
  
                                                                                            29
maintaining	
  the	
  sculptural	
  aesthetic	
  of	
  the	
  installation. 	
  

28
   	
  In	
  case	
  of	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  desired	
  state,	
  the	
  Initial	
  aim	
  -­‐	
  phrased	
  in	
  Step	
  1:	
  Point	
  of	
  Departure	
  -­‐	
  may	
  have	
  an	
  impact	
  
on	
  which	
  of	
  the	
  desired	
  states	
  is	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  process.	
  
29
       Cf.	
  Imhoff,	
  C.	
  et	
  al.	
  (2016).	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                       8	
  
You can also read
NEXT SLIDES ... Cancel